Sir James Jeans once had something to say about this kind of thinking. He said that while a million million phenomena consistent with a theory cannot prove that theory, a single phenomenon inconsistent with it can destroy it.

Now I know people who have kicked a habit deemed to be an addiction. And so do you. Therefore, how persuasive can the notion be that it’s not the junkie’s fault that he’s a junkie?

OK, why am I raising all this? What’s its significance?

Well, I’m doing it because the notion that people who are deemed to be addicted to something should not be held responsible for their actions appears to have settled into our courts of law as a given. And so it’s become a defense that’s had increasing success in criminal trials.

And because of that increasing success, there are more and more things that are deemed to be beyond the individual’s control. And, therefore, not his fault. Stealing, for example, when it’s attributed to something called post-traumatic stress. Or assaulting children, when supposedly caused by "premenstrual syndrome." And murder because the killer had been abused as a child.

You know, the way we’re going, I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if some kid in the future blows away his parents and successfully puts the blame on what he claims to be his addiction to Nintendo games.

Think about it.